Stanford says the θαπτέον is a neuter and governs τόνδ᾽.I understand most of what Smyth has to say about Verbal Adjectivesbut I am not sure if the description of the impersonal in 2152applies to this case. Are there other options?

NateD26 wrote:Every commentary I check seems to be more concerned about the placement of οὐχὶ.I don't understand why.

Here are some notes on verbal adjectives by J.R. Pitman (§853a-e) that may help.

Thank you Nate,

J.R. Pitman #853d actually cites Ajax 1140. So the prototype discussed by Smyth #2152 with the neuter singular verbal adjective taking an object in the case required by the verb is what we see in τόνδ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέον. Cooper has a discussion of this (vol. 1:56.18.2) which is in substantial agreement with Smyth and J.R. Pitman. In 56.18.0 he explains in detail how the verbal adjective in teos, tea, teon is not simply synonymous with the imperatival infinitive. I might attempt to give a synopsis but it wouldn't do it justice.

NateD26 wrote:Every commentary I check seems to be more concerned about the placement of οὐχὶ.I don't understand why.

Here are some notes on verbal adjectives by J.R. Pitman (§853a-e) that may help.

Thank you Nate,

J.R. Pitman #853d actually cites Ajax 1140. So the prototype discussed by Smyth #2152 with the neuter singular verbal adjective taking an object in the case required by the verb is what we see in τόνδ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέον. Cooper has a discussion of this (vol. 1:56.18.2) which is in substantial agreement with Smyth and J.R. Pitman. In 56.18.0 he explains in detail how the verbal adjective in teos, tea, teon is not simply synonymous with the imperatival infinitive. I might attempt to give a synopsis but I couldn't do it justice.

Thanks to Cooper (vol. 1:55.3.12) I discovered that θάπτω is actually used in an imperatival infinitive in Ajax 1089 Καί σοι προφωνῶ τόνδε μὴ θάπτειν. Cooper's explanation (vol. 1:56.18.0) of why this is not synonymous with Ajax 1140 ἕν σοι φράσω: τόνδ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέον is difficult for me to understand. He claims that the two different idioms are not interchangeable. But it looks to me like Ajax 1089 and Ajax1140 are saying the same thing. Anyone else have access to Cooper? He isn't available on the web which is a shame.

NateD26 wrote:It seems to be synonymous with 1140. Can you please post Cooper's explanation as to why it isn't so?

Nate,

I goes on for pages, here is some of it.

Cooper vol 1:58:18:0 page 864

If verbals in -TEOS were simply interchangeable with imperatival infinitives one would expect to see verbals used in place of infinitives in some passages. Actually this never happens. If a verbal is needed after DOKEI for instance, then EINAI is added. This goes against the general practice with verbals. Where they are felt as independent verbs their finite supporting forms such as ESTI are easily omitted. EINAI is called for simply to create a periphrastic infinitive in a place where a verbal adjective is not felt as an acceptable substitute for an imperatival infinitive. Exceptions can be explained.

{snip}

Furthermore imperatival infinitives and verbals in -TOS do not alternate with one another freely when they are used as independent verbs. Rather, such alternation follows rigid patterns. If the period starts off with infinitives which are identified as imperatival by a leading expression, the verbals may subsequently take over, have the purpose of restating the imperatival idea which may be weakened in the infinitives by removal from their introductory expressions e.g. DEI. Or an infinitive without introductory expression my succeed to verbals in -TEOS (= DEI c. inf.) as a climax of moral intensity, the simple imperatival infinitive having an absolute imperatival color which is more powerfully authoritative than any other kind of imperative.

I've always struggled with abstract explanations like this.I somewhat understand his meaning regarding the force of imperatival infinitives vs. that of verbal adjectives in -τέος, the former absolute, the latter merely a moral necessity.

But I do not understand why those in -τος can come in place of imperatival infinitives.According to Smyth §472, verbal adjectives in -τος either have a meaning of a perfect passive participle or they express possibility. Nothing here to suggestany connection to an imperative.

Edit: Oh, I guess it was a typo. Sorry.

I'm posting some sentences from Plato's Apology containing the same imperativein different constructions, and I would like to see them being rated on some sort of an axisaccording to Cooper's theory posted above.

But I do not understand why those in -τος can come in place of imperatival infinitives.According to Smyth §472, verbal adjectives in -τος either have a meaning of a perfect passive participle or they express possibility. Nothing here to suggestany connection to an imperative.

Edit: Oh, I guess it was a typo. Sorry.

Nate, I checked Cooper, -τος is the reading at:

Furthermore imperatival infinitives and verbals in -TOS do not alternate with one another freely when they are used as independent verbs. Rather, such alternation follows rigid patterns.

I don't understand all of what Cooper is saying which is why I started this thread. Cooper isn't nearly as "transparent" as Smyth.

I wonder what is the meaning of verbals in -TOS according to Cooper. It is quite a technicaland abstract terminology for me to understand.

I'm sure much more experienced users would elucidate his meaning.

Nate,

I think -TOS is a typo in Cooper, there are plenty of them. I think "verbals in -TOS" simply means verbal adjectives which belong to the class ending in -TOS, where I think we should read -TEOS. Makes more sense in the context, doesn't it? The expression "X in Y", where X is a grammatical category name and Y is a morphological ending is quite common in older New Testament Grammars.

NateD26 wrote:I'm posting some sentences from Plato's Apology containing the same imperativein different constructions, and I would like to see them being rated on some sort of an axisaccording to Cooper's theory posted above.

I looked at these and other places Plato uses θορυβ-. We find θορυβ- in adjectives but I didn’t find any verbal adjectives in -TOS or -TEOS. The citations you provided illustrate that imperatival infinitive alternates with the finite verb imperative in similar scenarios. Cooper identifies this pattern (vol. 1:55.1.4.C p. 768) “The general equivalence of the infinitive to an imperative ... is shown by its frequent alternation with imperatives.”

Cooper claims that verbal adjectives in -TEOS do not freely alternate with the finite verb imperative. Again the the somewhat difficult citation from Cooper:

Furthermore imperatival infinitives and verbals in -TOS [-TEOS] do not alternate with one another freely when they are used as independent verbs. Rather, such alternation follows rigid patterns. If the period starts off with infinitives which are identified as imperatival by a leading expression, the verbals may subsequently take over, have the purpose of restating the imperatival idea which may be weakened in the infinitives by removal from their introductory expressions e.g. DEI. Or an infinitive without introductory expression my succeed to verbals in -TEOS (= DEI c. inf.) as a climax of moral intensity, the simple imperatival infinitive having an absolute imperatival color which is more powerfully authoritative than any other kind of imperative.

Your evidence from Plato's Apology supports one portion of Cooper's argument. But θορυβ- in -TEOS doesn't appear in Plato, or anywhere else according to LSJ (did I miss something?).

Thank you,

C. Stirling Bartholomew

PS - as close as I could come in TLG-E was a few instances of ἀθορύβητος but not in Plato. Got my 17 cents worth out of TLG-E today. Costs $60 a year.

I've posted these instances mainly to ask how do they differ, if at all, from one another.And also to see whether rephrasing them in a form a verbal adjective in -TEOS wouldradically change their meaning, according to Cooper's view, which I still don't quite understand.

I do recall one verbal adjective in Plato's Apology but it wasn't of this verb, and Icannot really find it. Maybe it was neuter plural with alpha elided.

Last edited by NateD26 on Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

NateD26 wrote:I've posted these instances mainly to ask how do they differ, if at all, from one another.And also to see whether rephrasing them in a form a verbal adjective in -TEOS wouldradically change their meaning, according to Cooper's view, which I still don't quite understand.

I do recall one verbal adjective in Plato's Apology but it wasn't of this verb, and Icannot really find it. Maybe it was neuter plural with alpha elided.

Nate,

I found a citation form Plato Crit. in Cooper's discussion of verbals in -TEOS.

Cooper argues that inclusion of the infinitive with the verbal adj. ἀδικητέον εἶναι demonstrates that the imperatival nature of the -TEOS was not totally sufficient to stand alone. The omission of the infinitive on following line τινὶ μὲν ἀδικητέον τρόπῳ follows that standard pattern of not repeating the complete idiom, where the second ἀδικητέον stands for ἀδικητέον εἶναι.

EINAI is called for simply to create a periphrastic infinitive in a place where a verbal adjective is not felt as an acceptable substitute for an imperatival infinitive.

I really had to read the examples to begin to understand his argument.

Again, what had dictated Plato's choice in (c) of verbal adjective in -TEOS and then δεῖ + inf in (*)? Are there underlying meanings present in one but not in the other or are they absolutely synonymous,with only the desire of stylistic variety on Plato's mind?

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Cooper argues that inclusion of the infinitive with the verbal adj. ἀδικητέον εἶναι demonstrates that the imperatival nature of the -TEOS was not totally sufficient to stand alone. The omission of the infinitive on following line τινὶ μὲν ἀδικητέον τρόπῳ follows that standard pattern of not repeating the complete idiom, where the second ἀδικητέον stands for ἀδικητέον εἶναι.

EINAI is called for simply to create a periphrastic infinitive in a place where a verbal adjective is not felt as an acceptable substitute for an imperatival infinitive.

I really had to read the examples to begin to understand his argument.

I see. So he basically argued that the inclusion of the copula -- be it in its finite form in direct speech,and its in infinitive one in indirect speech -- reduces the imperatival force of the verbal adjective,essentially treating it as an adjective, rather than having the force of a finite verb.

You'll notice that in all the instances I've posted from Plato's Apolohy it is without the copula.

Again, what had dictated Plato's choice in (c) of verbal adjective in -TEOS and then δεῖ + inf in (*)? Are there underlying meanings present in one but not in the other or are they absolutely synonymous,with only the desire of stylistic variety on Plato's mind?

This is my take on how Cooper might address this. The imperatival significance of -TEOS differs from the imperatival infinitive and finite imperatives in as much as -TEOS is not typically able to sustain the imperatival idea all on its own. It needs help. In your example the imperatival idea has already been introduced by ἐδόκει εἶναι before we encounter the verbal adjective ἰτέον which is linked to previous imperatival with οὖν, indicating a dependent relationship. So the imperatival idea (scenario) is already active and ἰτέον picks it up and runs with it.

This is my take on how Cooper might address this. The imperatival significance of -TEOS differs from the imperatival infinitive and finite imperatives in as much as -TEOS is not typically able to sustain the imperatival idea all on its own. It needs help. In your example the imperatival idea has already been introduced by ἐδόκει εἶναι before we encounter the verbal adjective ἰτέον which is linked to previous imperatival with οὖν, indicating a dependent relationship. So the imperatival idea (scenario) is already active and ἰτέον picks it up and runs with it.

Someone might raise the objection that Ajax 1140 is an example of a verbal adjective in -TEOS functioning as an alternative for an imperatival infinitive. Menelaus first command forbidding funeral rights/burial for the body of Ajax is found in 1047-1048 where it takes the form of an imperatival infinitive μὴ συγκομίζειν.

The prohibition in 1089 is another imperatival infinitive τόνδε μὴ θάπτειν. Cooper claims that imperatival infinitive is an emphatic imperative which may be supported by a restatement in form of a a verbal adjective in -TEOS. In this context we see several restatements and the refusal of burial rites for Ajax scenario is well established and still active when we encounter the verbal adjective in 1140. This sequence of development from the more explicit imperatival infinitive followed up and supported by a verbal adjective is one pattern that Cooper accounts for in his treatment.

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:The prohibition in 1089 is another imperatival infinitive τόνδε μὴ θάπτειν. Cooper claims that imperatival infinitive is an emphatic imperative which may be supported by a restatement in form of a a verbal adjective in -TEOS. In this context we see several restatements and the refusal of burial rites for Ajax scenario is well established and still active when we encounter the verbal adjective in 1140. This sequence of development from the more explicit imperatival infinitive followed up and supported by a verbal adjective is one pattern that Cooper accounts for in his treatment.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

So, according to Cooper, the verbal adjective in -TEOS can never stand on its own,and must be dependent on a previous form of imperative, and he provides evidence fromSophocles' Ajax. Does he provide other works as evidence for this treatment of verbal adjectives?

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:The prohibition in 1089 is another imperatival infinitive τόνδε μὴ θάπτειν. Cooper claims that imperatival infinitive is an emphatic imperative which may be supported by a restatement in form of a a verbal adjective in -TEOS. In this context we see several restatements and the refusal of burial rites for Ajax scenario is well established and still active when we encounter the verbal adjective in 1140. This sequence of development from the more explicit imperatival infinitive followed up and supported by a verbal adjective is one pattern that Cooper accounts for in his treatment.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

So, according to Cooper, the verbal adjective in -TEOS can never stand on its own,and must be dependent on a previous form of imperative, and he provides evidence fromSophocles' Ajax. Does he provide other works as evidence for this treatment of verbal adjectives?

Nate,

It is not really that absolute, Cooper talks about patterns. He doesn't claim that -TEOS can never stands on its own. This is similar to how descriptive linguists, people like Iver Larsen (Demnark, East Africa) do their work. They look at patterns within the corpus. Cooper doesn't claim to be a linguist but he makes some similar moves. Cooper claims that there are some fairly predicable tendencies in syntax of -TEOS verbal adjectives. He gives plenty of examples and tries to cover most of the exceptions. Thats why his book is 3500 pages about 20-25% of which are index to the citations from the corpus.

Thanks, CSB. It's also very difficult to understand to what quote he referred to and assess the roleof the gerundive in it because that page is not viewable (at least from my location).

I get mixed results when searching for definition of psychological necessity. From what I couldfind, Jung wrote about it in relation to the survival of a baby, who clutch to and feel safest with thefirst adult he/she encounter, usually the mother. Apparently, it's the child psychological survival instinct that lead him/her to do so.

When a father prohibits his child from doing something, is it a prudent necessity, falling in linewith the father's moral view, or something stemming from the need to keep the child alive?I guess that would largely depend on the content of said prohibition.

The way Smyth presents δεῖ in §933b suggests it is an ought that binds you and it wouldn't be merelyprudent to do or not do something, but an absolute necessity, thereby not differing from aregular imperative or prohibition.

In which case,

δεῖ σε μὴ ταῦτα ποιεῖνκελεύω σε μὴ ταῦτα ποιεῖνταῦτά σοι οὐ ποιητέον

don't seem to have much difference between them. Or maybe I'm oversimplifying things.

Forgive me if I don’t read the lengthy series of posts from 2012, but there is evidently a fair bit of confusion here. Let me try to clarify the various syntactical issues in question.

Ajax 1140. τόνδ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέον is an independent sentence, with unremarkable grammar. The verbal adjective is used impersonally, and has τονδε as its object. Lit. “There is not to be a burying this man.” θαπτέον is neuter.

The closest equivalent would be ὅδ’ ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέος, the personal use, “This man is not to be buried.” That would put more stress on “this man,” whereas the impersonal use appropriately puts more stress on the action, the not-burying. (I could bring Latin gerundives into it, but won't.)

Doukas, in paraphrasing as ἀπαγορεύω σοι τοῦτον θάψαι, changes the syntax: “I forbid you to bury this man,” addressing Teucer, Ajax' half-brother. Here the infinitive is dependent on ἀπαγορεύω in an indirect command construction, which works the same way English does.

In neither case is there an imperatival infinitive. (It would be most surprising if there were.) Nor is there "a finite verb imperative." That would be μη τουτον θαπτε (or θάψῃς), “Don’t bury this man.” That would import an addressee (Teucer), like Doukas’ paraphrase, whereas the original Greek doesn’t: it's framed in general terms, an absolute prohibition. Apart from that there is not a whole lot of difference between the imperative and the verbal adjective, except the latter has a more formal and legalistic feel and is a stronger form of expression (and less common).

In OT 361, ἀλλ᾽ αὖθις φράσον, “Now, say it again!” Doukas substitutes σαφέστερόν σοι ῥητέον, which is more exegesis than paraphrase: “You must speak more clearly” (lit. "There is to be speaking more clearly by you”), extrapolating from the Sophoclean context, Oedipus forcing Teiresias to repeat his accusation that Oedipus is himself the killer he's looking for. Doukas seems to go out of his way to distort and dullen Sophocles. The construction he uses is the same as the Ajax’s τόνδ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέον, impersonal verbal adjective.

None of these constructions is precisely equivalent to any other of them. (I know Markos scorns precision, but I don’t, and neither does Greek. ) Cooper’s observation is not contradicted by what Doukas does.